Today I had coffee with a local leader of a gun violence prevention group. Gun rights folks: I know what you’re thinking, “Oh boy. What did that gun-grabber activist have to say?”
She reached out to me following my piece in the Star Tribune, wanting to discuss the ideas presented and others we might bring up in conversation. One such idea I did with her was to try and reduce the stereotype of groups such as hers being “gun grabbers.” She actually tried dispelling that early on, saying they believe in gun rights for hunting, self-defense, and (I assume) other recreation.
I replied, though, that that’s not enough if getting gun rights folks to soften up a little is the goal. And I think it should be because some agreement is needed or we’re just at a continual stalemate. Concessions are unpopular these days with sides being so adversarial and far apart, but I suggested to her to come out and recognize that any additional gun control will reduce effectiveness of some extreme self-defense scenarios. (I just saw security footage of a single jewelry store owner having his storefront driven into by a car and then two more pulling up, seeing eight thieves barging in. They assaulted the owner and took whatever they wanted. A six round clip may not be enough here, as people in the comments stated.)
Yet, I also shared with her that I believe gun rights folks could make concessions as well if spoken to plainly about the trade-offs of reducing a villain's ability to fire off 100 rounds in a school. While it’s unfair to take good people’s freedoms away because of what dangerous people do, I think gun folks would live with a clip-size restriction and perhaps a cosmetic one as well, given the desire to see such “assault weapons” prohibited. And prohibited guns and clips that already exist? They're grandfathered in. It’s nothing new to see freedoms restricted because of general safety concerns. Despite the off-cited Ben Franklin quote “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," freedom-oriented folks live with speed limits and building codes.
From my conversations and current understanding of the issue, these two regulations could pass. But also, as my article stated, they're not going to help much—thus my criticism of the focus on guns in the first place. Pistols and self-inflicted gun shots comprise the vast majority of gun violence. And, unless activists are then going to try to take away pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns—something gun rights folks suspect, reducing their desire to give an inch—the inevitable reality gun control activists (and all of us) will face is the ugly one before us: We live in an increasingly disordered era.
Rebuilding some order and hope is how we reduce violence (gun or otherwise), and this probably doesn’t begin to be resolved at the Capitol. It happens with each of us, in our families and communities.
She and I talked for a while, she sharing her passion to see her children grow up in a safer society. Don't we all. We just need to look far beyond the guns to see that happen.
My piece in the Star Tribune photographed here:
